Stevenson against Lambard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 1802 |
| Date | 06 July 1802 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 490
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See Swansea Corporation v. Thomas, 10 Q. B. D. 48; Baynton v. Morgan, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 105; 22 Q. B. D. 74.
490 STEVENSON V. LAMBARD 2 EAST, 57.5. 575] stevenson against lambard. Tuesday, July 6th, 1802. An action of covenant lies against the assignee of a lessee of an estate for a part of the rent, as in such case the action is brought on a real contract in respect of the land, and not on ,a personal contract. And in case of eviction the rent may be apportioned, as in debt or replevin. Aliter in covenant against the lessee himself who is liable on his personal contract. [See Swansea Corporation v* Thomas, 10 Q. B. D. 48; Baynton y. Morgan, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 105; 22 Q. B. D. 74.] The plaintiff declared in covenant against the defendant as assignee of one Charles . Dixon upon an indenture made on the 1st of May 1798, whereby the [576] plaintiff, for the considerations therein mentioned, demised to Dixon and his assigns two messuages and a warehouse therein described, to hold from the 25th of March then last past for the term of 31 years, at the yearly rent of 1051. by equal quarterly case of Gulliford v. Blandford, Carth. 252; and therefore this is not to be compared to the cases where the exhibiting the bill appears to be the commencement of the aetfon, and the cause of action arises subsequent to the memorandum. As to the 2d objection this action is not to be considered as founded on a contract, but on a tort, which is joint and several; and for this the case of Bastard v. Hancock, Carth. 361, is in point; where in an action of debt on the statute against several defendants for not setting out tithes, the jury found for the plaintiff against one defendant only; and as to the others nil debent: and this very objection taken in arrest of judgment, but over-ruled ; for that the action being founded on a tort, and not on a contract, not culpabilis would have been a good plea; and therefore one of the defendants may be found guilty and the others acquitted, as in other actions upon torts. As to the 3d objection; there is no doubt but that the law allows the charging several persons as joint offenders: and in this case the statute itself has considered several as capable of being joint offenders; for it says that if any person or persons shall keep lurchers and be thereof convicted, the person or persons so convicted shall forfeit 51. So that it gives one penalty of 51. to be paid by the person or persons who act against the statute. The statute has therefore made it a joint offence in all persons concerned, and has made them all [575] subject but to One forfeiture, and they are consequently within the rule of the eommou law punishable jointly. And therefore the case in Roll. Abr. and the case of The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dooner v Odlum
...stand refused with costs. C. L. (1) Before Cherry, L.C.J., and Kenny, J. (1) [1914] 2 I. R. 1. (1) Cro. Car. 221. (2) 2 Levinz, 231. (3) 2 East, 575. (1) Cowp. 766. (2) 1 Bing. N. C. 756. (3) 11 M. & W. 896. (1) 5 B. & C. 479. (2) 2 Levinz, 231. (3) 15 I. C. L. R. 296. (1) 2 L. R. Ir. 124. ......
-
Lester v Ridd
...of parts to separate assignees an action on the covenant would lie against each assignee of part for not repairing his part— Stevenson v. Lambard (1802) 2 East 575, at 580 per Lord Ellenborough C.J. Moreover, established authority shows that under the covenant for payment of rent the landlo......
-
Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd
...liable to pay half the rent. Further cases in the eighteenth century applied the same principle. In the early nineteenth century in Stevenson v Lambard (1802) 2 East 575 the landlord brought an action in covenant against an assignee of the term claiming rent. The assignee pleaded (amongst o......
-
Mercer v O'Reilly
...v. MackenzieENR 1 M. & W. 797. M'Areavy v. Hanna Exch., H. T. 1862, not reported. Hodgkins v. Robson 1 Ven. 276. Stevenson v. LambardENR 2 East. 575. Salmon v. Smith 1 Wm. Saund. 2024. Sunn v. Di Nuovo 3 Sco. N. R. 487. Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. O'ConnorUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 242. Morriso......